Introduction
The case under analysis illustrates different causes of legal action, arising out of various situations. It is possible to single out several ones, for instance, trespassing, defamation, product negligence, violent assault, unpremeditated murder, and many others. Certainly, not all hypothetical lawsuits are likely to succeed because many of them may not be sufficiently grounded. Occasionally, the fact of misdemeanor is impossible to substantiate. The examples, which will be discussed in this paper, are entirely hypothetical yet, there are very widespread in modern practice. Moreover, they may be disputed for a very long period of time. This is why it is vital to overview probable solutions to these problems.
Main body
For instance, Labory hurts himself during one of his experiments with the toaster. In particular, he tried to cook a chicken on this device this lead to injury. In theory, Labory can sue the manufacturer (Great Toaster Inc) because the company did not warn the clients that this utensil was not intended for this purpose. Some of such lawsuits did yield results and the claimant was compensated. Yet, under these circumstances, Labory can hardly expect any indemnity for his misfortunes, because there is such concept as reasonable use of the product. In other words, a sensible person of his age is rather unlikely to cook a chicken in a toaster, and Great Toaster Inc cannot possibly presume that their toasters can be employed in such away. However, there is one limitation: provided that such incidents had occurred to a child, this enterprise might have been forced to pay money. The thing is that a child cannot be called a sensible person in every sense of this word. Therefore, the exact decision-making of the judge may vary.
Another interesting example is the relationship between trespassing and negligence of the premises. The students try to get into the house; they attempt to climb over a wooden, being unaware that the fence is on the verge of collapsing. The fence collapses and some of them fall on the broken glass. There is a great likelihood that they bring legal action against the owner of the house for alleged premises liability. We should bear in mind that the proprietor of the real estate has an obligation to notify his or her guests about dangerous conditions in the house or apartment especially if it may entail serious bodily injuries or death. But this rule does not include undiscovered trespassers. We need to take into consideration that these students were not invited to the party and had no right to intrude into the private territory. In the eyes of law, they are actually trespassers; this is why they are not eligible for any indemnity. Apart from that, the owner of the house might not even know about the damage. Finally, even a new fence can crash if it is being climbed over by many people at the same time and they might have possibly made a reasonable assumption of risks associated with their behavior. So this suit will be fruitless.
We may also need to discuss such causes of legal action as defamation when Cory claims that his friend Armorys sexual life is very promiscuous and adds Armory has all kinds of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). This is one of those situations when a claimant (Armory) can file a lawsuit against Cory because the defendant deliberately tarnished his good name and reputation. The only defense under this scenario is the truth: Cory has to prove that his statement is grounded in any way. We need to take into account that Armory does not have any STDs. Cory may also argue that his intention was to protect the well-being of another person, Shelly. At first glance, this may seem to be a plausible explanation. However, defamation took place in the course of a quarrel and its primary cause was malice rather than good intention. Cory may as well tell that he was genuinely mistaken when he was insulting Armory. But even these defense tactics will be helpless because he could not receive this information from anyone. So Armory has every reason to believe that the compensation will be made.
This discussion should also include such cases as injury, inflicted in the course of outdoor games. Rory improperly tackles one of his friends Softy, his tackle results in broken ribs and hospitalization for three weeks. Rorys behavior can be interpreted as the cause for legal action, especially given the cost of medication for Softy. Yet, it is hardly probable that this lawsuit will succeed, because they were playing football, this sport is believed to be one of the most dangerous ones. Therefore, an individual who decides to play accepts hypothetical dangers. Nonetheless, there is an exception to this rule; namely if this harm was intentional and done out of malice. It is rather difficult for a judge to bring any verdict in such cases because the guilt of the defendant is almost impossible to prove.
Unpremeditated murder is by far the most crucial example, presented in this case. Shelly was running his car through the red light and collided with another vehicle. She tried to stop her car but it was too late and the other woman, an elderly lady did not survive the injuries. Naturally, Sheilas guilt is quite obvious.
From a legal perspective, she has committed an unintentional murder. Still, the court can justify her due to her emotional state. It should be mentioned that she was very upset by the quarrel in the house. Secondly, she did almost everything to avert the tragedy. These are extenuating circumstances, which may significantly affect the judgment of the court.
When speaking about Sheilas emotional distress we should discuss the accident that occurred in the house. As it has been pointed out earlier, Cory and Armory were quarreling with one another. Cory swung a bottle at Armory and barely hit Shelly. This may be interpreted as the infliction of emotional distress. Theoretically, this is grounds for a lawsuit because Corys behavior posed an immediate threat to Shellys health or even life. In case of trial, the claimant will be eligible for indemnity, especially if her claims are supported by witnesses testimony.
Conclusion
These scenarios illustrate the cases which have become quite common nowadays. They are very helpful to students, lawyers, judges, and average citizens, who should be familiarized with their rights and obligations. They are of great assistance to us because they illustrate the factors to which they need to pay attention, such as the presence or absence of the premeditation, motive, and awareness of committing the crime. Certainly, this discussion lacks specific details because in real-life situations the decision-making becomes much more complicated.